The Conspiratorial Dilemma: Anatoli Golitsyn

One addendum to my previous message:

Included in the list of articles above is the March 1949 article concerning comments made by Adolph A. Berle. Mr. Berle was a former Assistant Secretary of State.

If the New York Times REALLY intended to "coverup" data about Soviet genocide -- is it likely

(a) that they would publish such an article in the first place?
(b) that they would feature such an article prominently in the News section of their paper?
(c) that they would welcome prominent exposure for comments made by a former senior government official (thus lending the aura of expert testimony to such comments)?

As mentioned previously, Spanalot has an agenda and it is more important (in his mind) to propagandize for his agenda than it is to carefully present factual evidence for his point of view.

How you say ---"Checkmate"!

http://ucca.org/famine/gordondispatch.html

Very silly (and irrelevant) reply Spanalot. We are not debating Duranty. He is ONE reporter from an institution that employed hundreds of reporters over the years.

We were discussing your broad, sweeping, derogatory generalizations which contain fundamental factual errors.
I posted SPECIFIC DETAILS (article titles, dates, and page numbers) to demonstrate the absurdity of what you wrote.

Your reply? -- CHANGE THE SUBJECT! As I said previously, you obviously have an agenda and the worst possible development, from your perspective, is that you might have to acknowledge that a portion of your dogma is false.

Notice that -- at no time during our discussion have you had the decency to acknowledge any of your errors even when I supplied specific details that demonstrated your statements were false or gross exaggerations.

If you are not capable of acknowledging relatively minor errors, then why should any of us believe that you are capable of acknowledging more serious errors that go to the heart of your assertions?

Your entire approach seems to be as follows:

1. Assume the worst possible motives about any critic
2. Ignore specific contradictory evidence
3. Refuse to acknowledge error
4. Be hostile and abusive

Once again: let's repeat your original falsehood along with your instantaneous ad hominem attack:

"The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987. That amounts to 55 years of cover up if my cyphering is right - and your friends in the Kremlin still deny it. Its better to be suspected of being a lackey than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

The New York Times is often described as the "paper of record" for the United States because so much of the public debate in our country originates from discussions arising from articles published in the Times--particularly those written by investigative reporters.

You can agree or disagree with those reports. But nobody has the right to fabricate such a monstrous falsehood as "there were no reports", or there was "a coverup", or the NYT "denied the existence" of Communist genocide.

If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you need to restrain your rhetoric excesses so that people will know that you are an honest, reliable, trustworthy source of information. Right now, that is VERY questionable.

"Very silly (and irrelevant) reply Spanalot. We are not debating Duranty. He is ONE reporter from an institution that employed hundreds of reporters over the years. "

The State Dept memo implicates the NY Times - not Duranty.

Come back when you learn how to read.

Apparently, it is YOU that needs to learn how to read.

As the article link you posted makes clear -- it is a discussion about WALTER DURANTY. The closing paragraph summarizes the purpose of the discussion as follows:

"This document not only brings to light Duranty’s shortcomings in his coverage of the Soviet Union during the 1930s, but also raises the question as to his journalistic integrity, for which in 1932, he was awarded the prestigious Pulitzer Prize."

MORE IMPORTANT: You obviously do not want to confront the specific articles I listed which eviscerate your argument.

As I stated previously:

The March 1949 speech by former Assistant Secretary of State Adolph A. Berle was given prominent coverage by the Times.

If the New York Times REALLY intended to "coverup" data about Soviet genocide -- is it likely that

(a) they would publish such an article in the first place?
(b) they would feature such an article prominently in the News section of their paper?
(c) they would welcome prominent exposure for comments made by a former senior government official (thus lending the aura of expert testimony to such comments)?

Furthermore, if as YOU claim,.....
"The US recognized the Soviet Genocide only in 1987. That amounts to 55 years of cover up if my cyphering is right"...

Then how does one explain the 1958 report by the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service which I cited previously and repeated below? This is an official government publication whose very TITLE acknowledges Soviet genocide!! How much more obtuse can you possibly be?

The Soviet empire: prison house of nations and races;
a study in genocide, discrimination, and abuse of power.
Library of Congress., Legislative Reference Service.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1958

Furthermore, if as YOU claim, there has been a 55-year "coverup" then, by definition, we would have no knowledge about "Soviet genocide" from (a) newspaper articles (b) government hearings and reports and (c) scholarly works.

But as I have shown you through numerous examples, there is a wealth of such data available.

And, finally, I specifically mentioned several books which discuss "Soviet genocide" -- including Ukraine. I asked you if you had read any of them. I also asked you to explain how they are defective, based upon YOUR research.

Significantly, you chose not to answer me --- because if you HAVE read those books or Congressional reports, then you would have to admit that your basic premise is erroneous. And if you HAVE NOT read them, then you would be revealed as an ill-informed ideologue.

What all ideologues and political extremists (left or right) seem to have in common is the practice of taking evidence beyond what is reasonable, fair, and prudent.

In other words, they feel compelled to annihilate opponents, not merely triumph over them. Consequently, they are pre-disposed toward utilizing falsehoods, hoaxes, misrepresentations, half-truths, distortions, and gross exaggerations --- even though they could have made their case WITHOUT resorting to such tainted data.

Spanalot's messages wreak of this problem. For example, he says that the New York Times has never acknowledged Soviet genocide and the Times is complicit in an ongoing 55-year "coverup" of the truth.

As I have conclusively demonstrated in previous messages, by citing specific NYT articles since that 1940's, that accusation obviously is a falsehood. Yes, the Times initially published Walter Duranty's false depictions about Soviet life and the famine---largely because they did not want to antagonize a wartime ally.

But the bare truth is not good enough for ideologues.

See Washington Post article copied below for additional info re: the NYT and Walter Duranty.

Notice in particular the comments quoted in the article by the historian whom performed an independent study of this matter with respect to his perception of the attitude of the NYT itself regarding Duranty. The historian said about the NYT:

"There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published."

Also significant: Duranty's 1932 Pulitzer is displayed with the notation: "Other writers in the Times and elsewhere have discredited this coverage."

THE TEXT OF THE POST ARTICLE:

"The executive editor of the New York Times said yesterday that the paper has no objection if the Pulitzer Prize board wants to revoke an award granted to one of its reporters 71 years ago.

Stepping into a simmering controversy over whether Walter Duranty deserved the prize for his largely favorable reporting on Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, Bill Keller said the paper has notified the board that the Times considers Duranty's work 'pretty dreadful . . . . It was a parroting of propaganda.'

After a review conducted by a history professor, Keller said, the Times essentially told the board in a letter that 'it's up to you to decide whether to take it back. We can't unaward it. Here's our assessment of the guy's work: His work was clearly not prizeworthy.'

Columbia University professor Mark von Hagen said he found that the Moscow correspondent's 1931 work 'was a disgrace to the New York Times. There's no one there who disagrees with me. They acknowledged that his is some of the worst journalism they ever published.'

The Pulitzer board, which is based at Columbia, has been reviewing Duranty's 1932 award for months. Sig Gissler, the board's administrator, said that 'this is a confidential internal review and it's ongoing' but declined to elaborate.

Duranty has been posthumously under fire for years for whitewashing Stalin's murderous excesses. Von Hagen, confirming a report in the New York Sun, said he was 'appalled that the New York Times had a reporter like this who continued to write Stalinist justifications for what was going on there.'

The Times ordered the study soon after Howell Raines resigned as executive editor in June, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal. The paper had previously maintained that there was no point in revisiting ancient history.

Keller said the Times has long since stopped defending Duranty and posted a note next to his picture in the paper's Pulitzer hallway saying that many people had discredited his work.

But the board may face a dilemma. As Keller noted, the prize was awarded for Duranty's work in 1931, which was mostly about Stalin's economic plan and interviews with the Soviet leader. But Duranty is notorious in historical terms for grossly understating the massive famine that killed millions in the Ukraine in 1932-33, during the forced collectivization of Soviet farms.

A 1933 article by Duranty was headlined 'Famine Toll Heavy in Southern Russia.' The lead, however, said: 'The excellent harvest about to be gathered shows that any report of a famine in Russia today is an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.'

Said Keller: 'The stuff he wrote in '31 was awful. The stuff he wrote in '33 was shameful. If the Pulitzer board wants to say you can have your prize revoked for subsequent behavior, that's their right.' But he said other prize-winners might face similar complaints.

The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, which has led the protests against Duranty's prize and likened it to the Blair saga, says that more than 15,000 postcards and letters have been sent to the board.

Von Hagen's study said Duranty's 1931 reporting was 'distorted' and displayed a 'lack of balance and uncritical acceptance of the Soviet self-justification for its cruel and wasteful regime.' The report added that 'several foreign correspondents fell under Stalin's spell to a certain extent, as Duranty clearly did, especially if they had been granted the privilege of an interview with the great man.'

The Pulitzer board decided to examine the Duranty case in April, before Blair's fabrications surfaced. The board looked at the matter once before, in 1990, after publication of 'Stalin's Apologist', a book by S.J. Taylor that accused Duranty of covering up for Stalin's brutal regime.

At the time, the board said in a statement, it gave 'extensive consideration to requests for revocation of the prize to Mr. Duranty -- which would have been unprecedented -- and decided unanimously against withdrawing a prize awarded in a different era and under different circumstances.'

"largely because they did not want to antagonize a wartime ally."

How do you know? It is very apparent that the vast majority of the press were communists.

How do I know? Because I have read numerous histories of the period.

"Very apparent that the vast majority of the press were communists" ??

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

1. Did you have conversations or correspondence with the "vast majority of the press"?

2. Have you obtained the FBI files of those individuals that you suspect of being Communists?

At this point, I am compelled to introduce the following article --- because so many of the "traits" discussed, apply to Spanalot:
http://www.lairdwilcox.com/news/hoaxerproject.html

Laird Wilcox on Extremist Traits

[The Hoaxer Project Report, pp. 39-41]

Robert F. Kennedy wrote:

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

In analyzing the rhetoric and propaganda of several hundred militant "fringe" political and social groups across the political spectrum, I have identified a number of specific traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist "style"...

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues.

Extremists object strenuously when this is done to them, of course!

2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-semite, red, commie, nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don't have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.

3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.

4. INADEQUATE PROOF FOR ASSERTIONS.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy about what constitutes proof, and they also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their before and after relationship). They tend to project wished-for conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information that confirms their beliefs while derogating or ignoring information that contradicts them. They tend to be motivated by feelings more than facts, by what they want to exist rather than what actually does exist. Extremists do a lot of wishful and fearful thinking.

5. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage.

6. TENDENCY TO VIEW THEIR OPPONENTS AND CRITICS AS ESSENTIALLY EVIL.

To the extremist, opponents hold opposing positions because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, hateful, cruel, or whatever, not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests, or are perhaps even mistaken.

7. MANICHAEAN WORLDVIEW.

Extremists have a tendency to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong, with the "right" position coinciding with their interests. Their slogan is often "those who are not with me are against me."

8. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing "subversive" or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for "offensive" views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views.

9. TEND TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IN TERMS OF WHO THEIR ENEMIES ARE: WHOM THEY HATE AND WHO HATES THEM.

Accordingly, extremists may become emotionally bound to their opponents, who are often competing extremists themselves. Because they tend to view their enemies as evil and powerful, they tend, perhaps subconsciously, to emulate them, adopting the same tactics to a certain degree. For example, anti-Communist and anti-Nazi groups often behave surprisingly like their opponents. Anti-Klan rallies often take on much of the character of the stereotype of Klan rallies themselves, including the orgy of emotion, bullying, screaming epithets, and even acts of violence. To behave the opposite of someone is to actually surrender your will to them, and "opposites" are often more like mirror images that, although they have "left" and "right" reversed, look and behave amazingly alike.

10. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to "ally oneself with the devil," or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate.

11. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.

For many extremists shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem to be necessary in order to avoid or evade awareness of troublesome facts and compelling counter-arguments. Extremists generally behave in ways that reinforce their prejudices and alter their own consciousness in a manner that bolsters their false confidence and sense of self-righteousness.

12. ASSUMPTION OF MORAL OR OTHER SUPERIORITY OVER OTHERS.

Most obvious would be claims of general racial or ethnic superiority--a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or "class," and a kind of aloof "highminded" snobbishness that accrues because of the weightiness of their preoccupations, their altruism, and their willingness to sacrifice themselves (and others) to their cause. After all, who can bear to deal with common people when one is trying to save the world! Extremists can show great indignation when one is "insensitive" enough to challenge these claims.

13. DOOMSDAY THINKING.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to the special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the "beginning of the end!"

14. BELIEF THAT IT'S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A "GOOD" CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in "special cases." This is done with little or no remorse as long as it's in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.

15. EMPHASIS ON EMOTIONAL RESPONSES AND, CORRESPONDINGLY, LESS IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO REASONING AND LOGICAL ANALYSIS.

Extremists have an unspoken reverence for propaganda, which they may call "education" or "consciousness-raising." Symbolism plays an exaggerated role in their thinking, and they tend to think imprecisely and metamorphically. Harold D. Lasswell, in his book, *Psychopathology and Politics*, says, "The essential mark of the agitator is the high value he places on the emotional response of the public." Effective extremists tend to be effective propagandists. Propaganda differs from education in that the former teaches one what to think, and the latter teaches one how to think.

16. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see "latent" subversion, anti-semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.

17. USE OF SUPERNATURAL RATIONALE FOR BELIEFS AND ACTIONS.

Some extremists, particularly those involved in "cults" or extreme religious movements, such as fundamentalist Christians, militant Zionist extremists, and members of mystical and metaphysical organizations, claim some kind of supernatural rationale for their beliefs and actions, and that their movement or cause is ordained by God. In this case, stark extremism may become reframed in a "religious" context, which can have a legitimizing effect for some people. It's surprising how many people are reluctant to challenge religiously motivated extremism because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred-cow status of some religions in our culture.

18. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-aversiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or "rules" there are that regulate the behavior of others--particular their "enemies"--the more secure extremists feel.

19. I NCLINATION TOWARD "GROUPTHINK."

Extremists, their organizations , and their subcultures are prone to a kind of inward-looking group cohesiveness that leads to what Irving Janis discussed in his excellent book Victims of Groupthink. "Groupthink" involves a tendency to conform to group norms and to preserve solidarity and concurrence at the expense of distorting members' observations of facts, conflicting evidence, and disquieting observations that would call into question the shared assumptions and beliefs of the group.

Right-wingers (or left-wingers), for example, talk only with one another, read material that reflects their own views, and can be almost phobic about the "propaganda" of the "other side." The result is a deterioration of reality-testing, rationality, and moral judgment. With groupthink, shared illusions of righteousness, superior morality, persecution, and so on remain intact, and those who challenge them are viewed with skepticism and hostility.

20. TENDENCY TO PERSONALIZE HOSTILITY.

Extremists often wish for the personal bad fortune of their "enemies," and celebrate when it occurs. When a critic or an adversary dies or has a serious illness, a bad accident, or personal legal problems, extremists often rejoice and chortle about how they "deserved" it. I recall seeing right-wing extremists celebrate the assassination of Martin Luther King and leftists agonizing because George Wallace survived an assassination attempt. In each instance their hatred was not only directed against ideas, but also against individual human beings.

21. EXTREMISTS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS NO GOOD UNLESS THEY WIN.

For example, if they lose an election, then it was "rigged." If public opinion turns against them, it was because of "brainwashing." If their followers become disillusioned, it's because of "sabotage." The test of the rightness or wrongness of the system is how it impacts upon them...

""Very apparent that the vast majority of the press were communists" ?? "

"HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? "

Read Eugene Lyons "Assignment in Utopia" - he was a communist as was all the Moscow correspondents who acted in unison to cover up the truth of the Ukrainian Genocide.

Why do you think Hearst , the only non communist was villified?

You are boring and now you are predictable - Goodbye.

I have read Eugene Lyons and I also have his FBI file. So what?

You also are boring and totally predictable. You never once refuted anything I presented nor did you offer an alternative interpretation.

Your "debate" technique is quite transparent, i.e. make sweeping derogatory assertions but refuse to be held accountable for what you write, and refuse to respond to specific contradictory evidence.

Goodbye to you!

Serious students of conspiracy theories are invited to join my new Yahoo group, AOCT = Analysis of Conspiracy Theories:

Click to join AOCT

AOCT is different from most Yahoo conspiracy groups in several ways:

1. Perhaps most unique of all, AOCT members will periodically be introduced to first-time released data from FBI files and documents. The moderator of AOCT has obtained more than 200,000 pages of FBI files and documents which pertain to right-wing conspiracy theories and the persons and organizations that disseminate them -- as well as FBI data on persons and organizations which are often discussed in conspiracy literature.

2. Personal insults and abusive language will not be tolerated. Ditto for religious or racial slurs.

3. Members should be prepared to substantiate assertions they make by answering questions and indicating sources used to document their statements and conclusions.

4. Members should understand the difference between opinion and fact. We all have personal opinions and political preferences. But it is often necessary to set aside our personal convictions and preferences in order to candidly acknowledge when inconvenient factual evidence exists that challenges our premises and conclusions.

5. Robust critiques and comments are welcome -- but let's try to learn from each other via civil conversation. Many conspiracy theory adherents seem to resent being challenged to substantiate their statements or they become hostile when questions are asked or criticisms made. This reveals an intellectual weakness in their position which, perhaps, they do not wish to acknowledge. AOCT believes such matters deserve candid discussion.

6. AOCT wishes to encourage research by serious conspiracy students. Consequently, AOCT will provide numerous links to resources that conspiracy students (pro and anti) may find useful for their research. Currently there are almost 100 such links and more will be routinely added.

WHAT IS IN THE FILES SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) A 32-page list of FOIA requests that I have submitted to the FBI (and other government agencies). I will periodically update the list.

(b) A chart which will assist serious students who wish to pursue research into the private papers of prominent persons who have been involved with the Birch Society or within other right-wing conspiracy organizations.

(c) Coming in the future: a major listing of masters theses and doctoral dissertations pertaining to right-wing persons, organizations, and publications along with controversies in which conspiracy adherents played a major role.

WHAT IS IN THE DATABASE SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) A list of FBI file numbers which are relevant to AOCT topics. This list will be periodically updated.

(b) Key Figures: A database to identify key figures who have been part of the conspiracy community in the U.S. since the 1920's. Most of these persons are now dead and often little remembered. However, many of them were key players in their communities, their state, or even nationally. Due to the amount of time required to find all my notes -- this section will be populated in a relatively slow fashion.

WHAT IS IN THE PHOTO SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) Periodically I will attempt to scan interesting FBI documents and post them in this section.

WHAT IS IN THE POLLS SECTION OF OUR GROUP?

(a) Feel free to participate in the current question posted in the polls section. New poll questions will be added periodically so that everyone can give their judgments about interesting conspiracy-related matters.